Crosspointe B-2
Preliminary Information – Full Audit Pending
This buildings features were determined from publicly available data, including MLS listings. While we cross-referenced additional data sources, it still likely contains incomplete or inaccurate information, as it has not yet been personally verified.
Once a building has been fully audited, this page will be replaced with an in-depth analysis featuring verified details and photos of every key feature.
Until then, we provide a data‑driven overview that blends statistical analysis of the checkbox selections agents make in MLS with an AI‑powered read of their public remarks—yielding a clearer picture of the building than raw listings alone.
If this building is important to your search, you can help prioritize it for a full audit by requesting one below. To see what a complete report looks like, check out the example full report.
Crosspointe B-2
Building Overview
Building Features & Data Confidence
All features from MLS data with AI-assisted confidence analysis. Click each category to expand and see details.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for owner-occupancy indicators like "80% owner occupied," "majority owner occupied," or "highly owner occupied," but found nothing. Without an explicit occupancy statement, the owner-occupancy percentage cannot be derived from these remarks.
I looked for explicit elevator counts or phrases like "multiple elevators," "4 elevators," or "four elevators," but the remarks do not mention elevators at all. With no direct reference, the number of elevators remains unknown from the provided text.
Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
2/2 listings include OTCOEX in the association fee field, which strongly supports common area electricity being included. The public remarks do not specifically call this out, so the evidence comes mainly from consistent MLS data rather than copy-pasted marketing language.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Neither listing includes HOTWAT, while both show WTRHTR, which argues against hot water being part of the maintenance fee. The public remarks are silent on this feature, so the MLS data points to hot water not being included.
No analysis available
No analysis available
2/2 listings include SEWER in the association fee data, giving strong support that sewer is included. The remarks do not discuss utilities, so the MLS checkbox appears to be the main source of truth here.
2/2 listings include WATER in the association fee field, which strongly indicates water is included. The public remarks do not contradict this and do not appear to be independently verifying or denying utility coverage.
The feature is clearly supported by the remarks: both listings mention "BBQ areas." Combined with 2/2 MLS amenity flags, this is strong evidence the building offers BBQ/grilling facilities.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Neither listing mentions a clubhouse or community center. Because the current remarks only reference pool, fitness center, BBQ areas, and volleyball, the clubhouse flag is not supported.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Both current listings describe resort-style amenities including a "fitness center," which is a direct match for exercise_room. This appears consistently across 2/2 listings and is not just a checkbox-only signal.
No analysis available
No analysis available
The current MLS records indicate patio/deck amenities are checked in both listings, but neither set of public remarks describes a patio or deck directly. The only nearby outdoor references are to BBQ areas, which suggest shared outdoor amenities but do not clearly confirm patio/deck access. This appears more like copied MLS amenity data than strong remark-based confirmation.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
The listings describe amenities, but none specifically mention a recreation area, amenity deck, or recreation space. With no remark support, this appears to be an MLS checkbox artifact rather than a verified feature.
No current remarks mention a recreation room, rec room, game room, or entertainment room. Since the only evidence is a checkbox-style amenity code with no corroboration, this is best treated as absent/corrected false.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
There is no mention of a whirlpool, hot tub, jacuzzi, or spa in either listing. The available descriptions are consistent and do not support this amenity, so it should be treated as absent.
2/2 current listing remarks mention a swimming pool, describing "resort-style amenities" that include a "swimming pool". The language is explicit and repeated, so this appears to be a strong, consistent building amenity rather than a copied checkbox without support.
No analysis available
No analysis available
The feature appears to be present in the building based on current MLS inclusions: 2 of 2 listings show washer/dryer included. However, the public remarks for the current listing do not mention in-unit laundry, so the evidence is stronger from MLS data than from agent descriptions. Because historical remarks were silent, this looks like a likely but not explicitly advertised feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong evidence that the building offers parking. Both current MLS records include parking features, and the remarks confirm this with "2 parking stalls" in the unit description. This appears consistent across the listings rather than a one-off agent copy.
Assigned parking is supported by the current MLS metadata in both listings. While the remarks do not explicitly say "assigned," the presence of 2 parking stalls plus the ASSIGN checkbox makes this a strong building-level feature. No evidence suggests it is a mistaken copy-paste.
Covered parking is indicated by the MLS parking features in both listings. The remarks do not describe the structure of the parking, but the consistent covered/garage coding across the data is strong evidence. Buyers searching for covered parking should consider this building as offering it.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Guest parking is supported by the current MLS data in both listings. The public remarks do not mention guest parking, but the repeated GUEST flag across the listings is strong enough to include it. This looks like a building-level amenity rather than an isolated unit feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
There are 2/2 current listings with SECGUA checked in MLS amenities, but neither public remark explicitly says "security guard," "24-hour security," or similar. The remarks consistently mention a gated, private community, which may be related but is not the same as staffed security. Evidence is therefore present in MLS data but weak in the remarks and could reflect agent copy/paste behavior.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Window AC is indicated by current MLS inclusions in both available listings (2/2 show ACWIUN). Neither public remark mentions window air conditioners or window units, so the evidence comes from the MLS checkbox data rather than agent narrative. Confidence is moderate because the remarks are silent and may reflect copy-paste listing behavior.
No analysis available
Both current listings have DOUWAL marked in construction materials. No public remarks explicitly say "double wall" or similar phrasing, but the MLS construction data is consistent across all listings and there is no evidence suggesting a correction is needed.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Both current listings show SLAB in construction materials. Public remarks do not mention "concrete slab" or any conflicting foundation description, and the MLS data is consistent across the available listings.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for insurance-related phrases such as "fully insured," "walls-in coverage," or "full building insurance," but the remarks do not mention insurance. The provided text offers no basis to determine whether the HOA fully insures the building.
No analysis available
I searched for language indicating the building passed a fire/life safety evaluation, FLSE, fire inspection, or similar compliance wording, but found none. Because there is no explicit mention in the remarks, this cannot be confirmed from the listing text.
Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Both current listings indicate GARDEN in the MLS view field (2/2). The public remarks are silent on views and read like generic copy, so the strongest evidence comes from the structured MLS data rather than remarks. This does not look like a one-off agent entry; it appears consistent across both listings.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
0 listings mention a resident or on-site manager; no remarks contain phrases like 'resident manager', 'on-site manager', or 'live-in manager'. With no prior confirmations and no current supporting remarks, there is insufficient evidence to mark this building as having a resident manager.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence levels are based on MLS checkbox data and AI analysis of listing remarks. High = strong evidence, Medium = some evidence, Low = limited or conflicting evidence. Buyers should always verify critical details independently.